Symmetrically Balanced Systems – are they able to develop useable torque ?

[Fletcher]

This is a very complex and impressive system that looks as though it could and should work.

Thanks, looks can be deceiving. The angle that the drivers lean on their rails is the key to computing the counter torque. You have to follow one driver & its opposite partner thru 90 degrees to start to see the problem.

I have racked my brains to discover ways to offset the centre of gravity on rotating weights but your idea is a real kick yourself one.

Yes I've been there. At various times I've tried offset cam wheels [to connect things to] either attached to a central stationary shaft or an ordinary counter balance with the central shaft able to rotate.

The purpose of posting this was so that others, like yourself, could take or learn what you want from it. It does seem to address the ring weight difficulties somewhat.

By now, some will have realized that this is just a self balancing offsetting system. When the load comes onto the float the whole mech acts like a vertical spring. This changes the force on the bottom of the bucket but its partner on the opposite side also experiences the same change in depth of liquid [re force], so the forces are equalized, 180 degrees apart.

It could be replaced by a single cam wheel on its own free stand that was separate from the wheel per se.

From my observation, It appears that the mass of the weights (scaled to the wheel) is very small. Yet given the buoyancy value of the floating drums, it looks as though you could afford to increase the mass value of the weights considerably.

The driver weights were V grooved steal pulley's used in electric opening gates. With their attachment bolts etc they came in at about 725 gms. I had also bought much heavier steal pulley wheels used in industry but they required a much bigger float & bucket. This was problematic for the size of my wheel at about 4 1/2 feet diameter.

The float was made from 4 inch sewer pipe with end caps fitted. They individually weighed a couple of hundred gms or so. To support their own weight or reduce it meant using a lighter medium such as polystyrene or as I opted to do neutralizing their weight & torque by duplicating them as a counter balance.

The floats had a volume of just over a litre so could support just over 1000 gms of weight [not counting their own weight as already mentioned]. The reason for these 'tight' tolerances was the depth the float was able to descend into the bucket without touching the bottom of the container. A good feel for the relationships & some trial & error gets things about right. I wanted the float [unloaded] to just dip in the water, & fully loaded to sink about 2/3rds the way in.

This is only an observation, and no doubt you have already done the homework with this on WM2D. What was the max mass value that you could use on this setup before the drum buoyancy was lost?

About 1000 gms for the reasons above.

P.S. I toyed with the idea of using a salt solution to get more buoyancy & therefore the ability to carry a heavier driver weight. Mercury even crossed my mind, at around 13.4 times the density of water, but then I was starting to get way too carried away with just a concept ;)

[Wheeler]

Thanks for showing this Fletcher.
You took me for a good ride because it was hard to see how it would not work.

PS Have you posted this to Wiki?
Seems like it should be cataloged.

[Fletcher]

No problem Wheeler. I'm not done just yet & the ol' Ken B in me is just itching to get started *just kidding*.

I'll hold the wiki in reserve till I can post a working design ;)

[Wheeler]

It did sound like I was burying you before you finished the project.
Captain Ken did die,but you seem to be gaining wind to your ship.
Good luck

[Fletcher]

The problem was that the guided driver weights, by necessity, leant on their rails. The amount of weight the rails carried [& the float did not] was determined by the angle of the lean. Although it was obvious that we had excess weight at 3 o'cl, the 12 o'cl - 6 o'cl position was killing the gains, as Coylo pointed out.

As with all ideas they tend to be a moving feast so we tried to keep an open mind & come up with a fix.

In the attachment below is a pic of what I hopefully thought might do it.

The dual drivers masses are arranged so that the weights closer into the axle apply the same torque as their lighter sisters further out. This one had me scratching my head for a while.

This was only ever built on WM as to re-jig my build would have been horrendous & Rainer set to it to either prove or disprove its possibilities.

[Fletcher]

Plans B & C got promoted.

Using ride on guides attached to a backboard & bridging the connection between mechs.

B: If the driver length was extended & it was allowed to come in contact with a curved guide (straight in model) the driver would run forward in order to escape the load.

As long as the driver weight was forward of the bucket pivot this would change the CoG of the bucket mech allowing it to instantaneously jump left or right as desired. That should result in an imbalance. It did, but the idea was defeated by geometric practicalities. Sim for anyone who wants to look at the movement ?

C : Using a connecting rod attach a scissor or any other type of expanding lever to contact a secondary OOB system like say Gordy's Iris wheel or MT18 etc. This should result in a force & torque transference to the other side of the wheel i.e. lift on the ascending side > transfer force of lift to descending side of the wheel as weight moves sideways on connecting rod.

Would there be enough to reset the mech ? No.

And so was yet another harsh lesson in OOB designs handed out.

[Fletcher]

Summary of Bucket Wheels : Observations & Conclusions about OOB Wheels

A Class One OOB wheel shifts weights around the wheel with the use of levers, springs etc. It also incorporates methods of shifting weights radially around the circumference in preference to in or out movement.

Class One wheels start in a naturally balanced position [symmetrical weight division left & right of the vertical line down thru the axle] & by shifting a weight closer to the axle or further from it, it is intended to create an OOB condition which will cause keeling [torque production], forcing the wheel to rotate to find its balanced position & hopefully back to an unbalanced position again. This is the most common type of wheel design.

Class One wheels 'trade width for height' & in the process of repositioning weights & resultant keeling, the wheels CoG is lowered & moved sideways. While this causes initial rotation it is not self sustaining because of normal & well known system energy losses.

N.B. The CoG always finds its lowest position or position of least potential which is the natural order of things.

Class Two OOB wheels attempt to have weights repositioned within the wheel without the CoG being lowered in the process. The Bucket & Float mech is an example of a Class Two Wheel.

Weights are also repositioned but the special counter weight mech has a compensatory effect so that the CoG always remains at the same level. It does not drop & does not reach its position of least potential [it's already there & stays there]. The water bucket acts like a vertical spring & is not affected by back torque usually associated with 'hard' repositioning systems. The internal self contained mech is no better in reality than a free standing separate cam wheel or journal & could be replaced by one.

While this looks to be an improvement on Class One wheels, normal system losses stop it from self sustaining also, so, even a CoG that does not drop as it cycles is still of no practical advantage or importance.

Class Three OOB wheels, in order to self sustain, must lift the CoG to above the axle, at least temporarily for part of the cycle. This must come about from the dynamics of motion to temporarily make the wheel top heavy so that in its new unbalanced state it wants to keel. As it moves to find its keel position its CoG is again lifted above the axle, unbalancing the wheel in a continuous alternating fashion.

Many would describe this action as "Boot Strapping" i.e. the ability to lift oneself by hauling on your own boot laces. While that may be true for static conditions it may not hold true for all dynamic conditions.

[scott]

Looks like good wiki material, Fletcher!

[Fletcher]

Be my guest ;)

[scott]

OK, done. It took about 20 seconds. :-)

I put it in the Principles section.

[winkle]

and beyond any reasonable drought Mr. Bessler had what you are calling a class three oob wheel

and i might add
thats what all us kopy kats desire to have also

[KAS]

Fletch,

I like the classification descriptions for 3 types of mechanical setups.
It appears that you have put a lot of man hours of study into these conclusions.

Are there more though?

I am thinking of resonance, Electromagnetic etc.

Trying to pigeon hole my previous attempts into these 3 categories however, I also noticed that some are combined e.g.
Some contain the classic radial movement described in Class 1 but the centre of gravity is above the axle temporarily as in Class 3.

Perhaps there should be a Hybrid classification.

Kas

[bluesgtr44]

and beyond any reasonable drought Mr. Bessler had what you are calling a class three oob wheel

Really?


Steve

[Fletcher]

KAS .. I wouldn't have attempted to classify wheel designs at all if I tried to cover every combination & hybrid there was or might be.

Granted, I may appear to be stating the obvious with a minimum of 3 Classes, but I find the framework & structure it brings to mind useful.

As an example, building that float mech really rammed home to me the importance of the wheels CoG. It must move about & be above the axle & that was the main lesson learnt. [Nothing like getting your hands dirty & skinning a few knuckles to reinforce the lesson. Action leads to inspiration & seldom the other way around].

Interestingly, I could have arranged to have the CoG high above the axle at all times [as discussed earlier in the thread with Paul i.e. continuous top heavy static model] but as a 'static' arrangement, this was of no practical use. Things must move so that they interact & can indeed keel & then keel again.

The thing is, the CoG must get above the axle for long enough to do some good. This is where Bessler said he could cause a heavy weight to fly upwards & that was the special part.

From these experiments & tedious hours building & testing I eventually went back to the only other likely force that could make a heavy weight fly upwards, & that was CF. If that could be tamed then there was a chance to keep the wheel top heavy, most of the time.

From that circular logic came the idea of 3 Classes of wheel design.

[winkle]

i believe that to be where the answer is to be found

wheel of the first class
trade height for width an even tradeoff
nothing is to be had from an even tradeoff except balance unless i am wrong

however my own experience has taught me that in an even tradeoff i mostly come out on the short end of the stick


wheel of the second class
if i remember correctly Mr. Bessler had at least one very thin wheel
most likely not enough room in them for a wheel of the second class unless i am wrong

not only that
i might be to thick to work in a skinny wheel



wheel of the third class
now you are talking wheels with possibilities
that is unless i am wrong


Mr. Bessler did say there was only one way
so with three different kinds of cats running around and two of them being only illusions which door do you pick

door # one
door# two
or
door # three

i guess just pick a door and start skinning cats
trouble is these cats have been skinned forever and so far the skins have all been empty

i think this bussness may be kinda like trying to skin a fart


if Mr Bessler told the truth 2/3 of the skinning efforts have been wasted since only one of these methods can work

just saying what i think not trying to push my thoughts on anyone


Fletcher

From these experiments & tedious hours building & testing I eventually went back to the only other likely force that could make a heavy weight fly upwards, & that was CF. If that could be tamed then there was a chance to keep the wheel top heavy, most of the time.

taming CF may be much more difficult than taming gravity
and taming boath could get really tough

other than that i hold to the idea there is a model in nature that has been over looked and not understood

nature is like a parable
so much hidden in plain sight

it seems there is allmost always someone whose eyes see clearer than mine
but that is not always the way of it